Channel Button

There are 10 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #2 by Helium's members.

Debate_icon

Politics, News & Issues   >

Environment (Other)

Get a Widget for this title

Air pollution or smoking: Which is the greater cancer risk?

Results so far:

Pollution
57% 51 votes Total: 90 votes
Smoking
43% 39 votes

Out of the two, air pollution and smoking, I, like most people, would consider smoking a greater risk for cancer. The first point that comes to mind is simply this: The lungs of nonsmokers are affected by air pollution. The lungs of smokers are affected by pollution and smoking.

With that said, there remains the subject of "second hand smoke." At first glance you would assume that this means nonsmokers are also affected by both pollution and cigarettes. But by what degree. Ventillation lessens the risk for nonsmokers because they are not taking the direct hit into their lungs like the smoker is. Read most household products that contain harmful chemicals and you will be informed to "use in a well ventallated area." Far more smokers die from lung cancer than nonsmokers from second hand smoke. The notion of second hand smoke does not mean pollution and cigarettes are an equal risk for cancer. That would be true, of course, if the nonsmoker were to climb a ladder and take a direct hit from a smokestack on a continuous daily basis.

Even using a score card, the smoker still strikes out. The non-smoker is subjected to: 1. Air pollution, 2. Second-hand smoke. The smoker is subjected to, 1. air pollution, 2. smoking, 3. second-hand smoke.

Pollution is prevalent in some areas more than others. But no matter where on this planet you place these two people, whether it's in a smog filled city, the desert, the arctic region, a national park, or on a cruiser in the middle of the ocean, the smoker has that extra strike against him by constantly filling his lungs with a full strength pollutant. He literally becomes a smokestack.

However, my arguement only supports the idea that the PERSON is at greater risk of cancer when they smoke; not that SMOKING causes more cancer than POLLUTION, or visa versa. The only way you could prove that is by separating the two. You would need two worlds; one where there was no tobacco, just pollution, and another planet were there was smokers but no other kind of pollution. Unless, of course, you're satisfied with the idea that most people who get lung cancer are smokers or were at some time in their life.

Learn more about this author, Joe Mccarthy.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.


Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:

Air pollution or smoking: Which is the greater cancer risk?

Smoking
  • 1 of 4

    by Bill Whitney

    Air pollution if it is bad enough and concentrated enough can cause cancer I am sure. But I know from personal experience

    read more

  • 2 of 4

    by Joe Mccarthy

    Out of the two, air pollution and smoking, I, like most people, would consider smoking a greater risk for cancer. The first

    read more

Pollution
  • 1 of 6

    by John Waters

    Air pollution or smoking: Which is the greater cancer risk?

    Tobacco smoke is just one of many carcinogens floating around

    read more

  • 2 of 6

    by Patrick Sills

    Let me begin by stating that if everything reported to cause cancer actually did, our average lifespans in the United States

    read more

Add your voice

Know something about Air pollution or smoking: Which is the greater cancer risk??
We want to hear your view. Write_penWrite now!

118457

Featured Partner

Why Tuesday

Why Tuesday has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause. Browse Why Tuesday's featured...more

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA